Excerpt: - .....no. 37 of 1951 (a); in - state v. brijlal dhodi air 1953 madh b 30 (b) and in - panna lal v. the state air 1953 madh b 84 (c) he is unable to support the appeal as the notification of the textile commissioner issued under the madhya bharat textile control order fixing the maximum price of cloth alleged to have been sold was pot produced and proved and further that inasmuch at the time of the alleged sale ganga ram saboo was not present at the shop, he could not be held to be vicariously liable for the act of his munim kishan lal.4. the appeal is, therefore, dismissed.

Judgment:

1. This is an appeal by the State from the decision of the City Magistrate Lashkar acquitting the respondents of a charge under Section 7(1), Essential Supplies (Temporary Powers Act) 1946.

2. The charge against the respondent was that on 20.3.51 they sold to one Mohan Lai some cloth in excess of the control price and thus contravened the provisions of the Madhya. Bharat Cotton Control Order, 1948, issued under the Essential Supplies (Temporary Powers) Act, 1946.

3. At the hearing of this appeal, the learned Government Advocate rightly and frankly conceded that in view of the decisions of this Court in - The State v. Bachchu Lal, Cri. Appeal No. 37 of 1951 (A); in - State v. Brijlal Dhodi AIR 1953 Madh B 30 (B) and in - Panna Lal v. The State AIR 1953 Madh B 84 (C) he is unable to support the appeal as the notification of the Textile Commissioner issued under the Madhya Bharat Textile Control Order fixing the maximum price of cloth alleged to have been sold was pot produced and proved and further that inasmuch at the time of the alleged sale Ganga Ram Saboo was not present at the shop, he could not be held to be vicariously liable for the act of his Munim Kishan Lal.